The Best Tankgun of WW2

Wich ww2 tankgun do you guys think was the best in a overall point of view, or wich did the most damage during ww2. ???

"Do not base it souly on penetration, but base it on the guns overall abillity as a Tankgun".

Regards, KBO

 

Difficult to say because it depended on the tank. For instance, the 88mm L/71 was probably the most powerful, but it needed a huge, immobile and expensive tank to carry it.

You also need to consider use: Allied tanks tended to use as much HE as AP, German ones probably more AP.

Probably the 17 pdr was the best for penetration in a compact size, but the HE effect was not as good.

Tony Williams

 

Not nessecarily - aside from the Nashorn (which may still be considered a bit clumsy), the Alkett Waffenträger would have been quite agile as far as I'm aware.

 

Pound per pound, mm per mm..... The 75mm L/70 is gotta be up there. Small and compact enough to be pack inside a medium tank, yet lethal enough to deal with most allied tanks.

 

I have to agree with Liang. It had all the best features of a tank gun. Imagine that gun on the T-34 with the appropriate ammo.

I wonder if the Russians did that and if not why not? A technology gap?

 

None of which were tanks....to be considered a 'tank gun' it has to fit into a turret and be carried by a tank with armour to match - and any tank carrying the 88mm L/71 would have to be very big.

TW

 

I don't believe that a tank needs a turret - after all, the vehicles initially named 'tank' didn't have one...

 

In WW1, yes, but by WW2 the world had moved on and definitions had firmed up. A tank not only needed a revolving turret - it needed good armour as well (which is why the US M10 and M36 were called tank destroyers, not tanks). Other types of mobile gun mountings were given other designations.

TW

 

And suddenly we're back here:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... ition+tank

 

I think we also had a few Best Tank Guns topics, but this best-on-average question is a nice perspective.

I think the best tank gun of WW2, judging overall characteristics, must be the PAK40 or 75mm L/48. It had very decent penetration as a tank gun, featured on the late PanzerIVs as well as one the StuGIII (the two most common German armoured fighting vehicles of the war). Its HE abilities were enough to meet the demands of the crew. It was so compact and light that even halftracks could support its size and recoil in a combat situation, yet it could knock out any Allied tank at 500 meters and the most common Allied tanks at over 1000 meters.

Not a whole many averages beat these.

 

Well not nessecarily since the panther could be armed with the 88mm L/71, but yes i do agree that it would have to be an relatively big tank wich the Panther also was, but it didnt have to be as big as the TigerII.

The TigerII's turret was big enough for the 128mm L/55-L/60 to be fitted in it, but this would have been highly unpractical since the 128mm gun used a two piece round, and even more so because the 88mm L/71 gun was more than enough against any allied or Russian tank during the war.


Now the 75mm L/70 gun on the panther was as powerfull as the U.S. 90mm M3 and the British 17pdr, and it could be fitted on a PanzerIV. It was also a very compact weapon considdering its penetration power, and a very accurate one to. This is why i think it was the overall best Tankgun of ww2.
Actually American tests at Aberdeen in 45 showed that the 75mm L/70 was better than the 90mm M3 gun in both Rate of fire, and Armor penetration. ("Source: Hunnicutt's Pershing book ")

The Tankgun that did the most damage in ww2 has to be the 88mm L/56 gun on the Tiger, wich really beat the **** out of the allied forces in Africa and Normandy not to mension the havoc it caused in Russia, plus it ruled supreme on every front for allmost 3 years.

Regards, KBO

 

Nope i checked

We only have a few "Tank guns" topics, but never a "The best tankgun of ww2" topic..

regards, KBO

 

I think the gun that caused the most damage was, again, the PaK40 because it was around in the greatest numbers. But now we're only judging German guns. The most numerous gun of the war was undoubtedly the Russian 76.2mm.

 

Still the 76.2mm gun didnt do nearly as much damage as the kwk36, and the Russian 76.2mm gun isnt even anywhere close to the 88 in terms of what damage the 88 caused during ww2.

Yes the 76.2mm gun on the T-34 was good in the start of the war, but in less than a year it was outclassed, and it didnt even cause any significant damage in the time when it was one of the best tankguns in the field, wich was in 1941.

regards, KBO :smok:

 

Is it this one your talking about Christian?? or is it the one on picture #2 ??

 

You seem to forget, KBO, that the very same 76.2mm gun was also fitted on the KV1, the T35, the T28 and a whole bunch of other (unsuccesful) early war tanks, as well as being the most numerous Russian field gun/light artillery/AT gun.

 

No i didnt forget that, but still from late 1941 and so on, Russian tanks allmost never succesfully destroyed a whole bunch of German Tanks, most german tanks were lost to AT guns and Artillery, not to mension the very effective soviet AT rifles, and not to Russian "Tankguns", and it would pretty much remain like this throughout the war...

It is very rare you hear of any account where Russian armor didnt win a tankbattle only by sheer numbers, or one where they even win...

Anyway from 1942 and onwards the Russian 76.2mm gun was obselete... And when the Tiger appeared the 76.2mm gun was just as good as scrap, it couldnt even pen the Tigers side or rear armor.

Anyway the most damaging Tankgun in ww2 is with no doubt either the 75mm L/43-48 or the 88mm L/56.......

Regards, KBO

 

I'm inclined to agree. It was the same weight as the 75mm in the Sherman, but had a significantly better performance. Towards the end of the war its penetration was becoming increasingly marginal, however, especially against the heavy Russian tanks.

Incidentally, it was the KwK 40 not PaK 40 - that was the anti-tank gun and was entirely different, firing non-compatible ammo.

TW

 

Tony
I would still refer to 'tank' as a mass designation.

By the way, on the topic of gun designations...

• Kw.K. - Kampfwagenkanone - used in tanks
• Pak - Panzerabwehrkanone (or Panzerjägerkanone) - used as independant guns or in tank destroyers
• StuK - Sturmkanone - used in assault guns

The gun changed designation depending on how it was employed, e.g. you wouldn't find a Pak in a Sturmgeschütz.

Also, it wasn't abbreviated PaK or Pak. - it was abbreviated Pak, with no capitalization or periods. Kw.K. used capitalization and periods, and StuK only capitalization.
I think this was an attempt to fool the Allied intelligence

KBO

No, it couldn't.

I was referring to the Waffenträger depicted by Niels Frederiksen's great model (which is even greater in person), but any one of them will suffice

 

But it wasn't - whereas the 17 pdr was fitted to the Sherman Firefly, the Pz.IV's direct equivalent. The Firefly could beat any model of Pz.IV which saw service.

IMO the 88mm L/56 might have been a better tank gun all-round than the 75mm L/70. Penetration wasn't quite as good but it was good enough - and the HE capacity was vastly superior. I say 'might have been' because the 88mm was very heavy - more than twice the weight of the 75mm L70. I don't think it needed to be, as the ammo was about the same size so I think that a slimmed-down, lighter 88mm L/56 could have been made, and that would IMO have been a better armament for the Panther.

TW